Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Is this the militia?

Joe Blogs, a dual US-UK citizen is a member of the Rifles, which is a direct descendant of the Royal American Regiment, which was created in 1756 as the 62nd (Royal American) Regiment to defend the thirteen colonies against attack by the French and their native American allies.

Does he count as being a member of the Militia for Second Amendment purposes? Seriously, wouldn't this regiment count as being the militia?

Likewise, does a member of the crips or other street gang count as the militia for Second Amendment purposes?

What makes one a militia under the Constitution? Wouldn't it require being formed under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

REPEAT TO REINFORCE THE MESSAGE: a category was created to keep the letter of the law, but not its spirit--The Unorganised, Sedentary, reserve, etcetera militia.

So, being in the "unorganized militia" conveys to you no rights, only the possibility of responsibilities. All it means is that you belong to that class of the militia which has no responsibilities. Being in the unorganized militia allows you to do not a single thing, because only the state and federal governments can create (working together) active militia systems. To date, their interest in doing so has largely concentrated on the National Guard.

Again, let me emphasize that there is not a single right guaranteed to you by virtue of your being in the unorganized militia.

The militia system intended by the framers is utterly defunct nowadays, the Pseudo Second Amendment "militia" advocates have seized upon the phrase "unorganized militia" in the US regulations. The subtle rhetoric trick here is to claim the "unorganized militia", (a term simply meaning eligible citizens) is the same as the "organized militia" (a term meaning amateur army) - EXCEPT when it comes to any State and Federal controls. They thus try to have it both ways, all the good things about the term (military connotations), without any of the restraints implied (government authority). However, it's very much an invention without any basis in fact. They just hope no-one in the audience knows enough history to call them on it, and they're often right.

But the propaganda here has it exactly backwards. The whole "unorganized militia" aspect was a much later legislative maneuver for people to GET OUT of the real (i.e. "organized") militia, akin to say getting out of the draft by being shuffled into a "reserve draft" category. It was for people to escape the conscription-like service requirements, not a license for private paramilitary groups. The structural details of the militia system were concerned with the extremely difficult task of funding and running an effective military without having a large standing army, and had nothing to do with individual gun rights. "Unorganized militia" in modern terms was more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

It's something like if during the Vietnam War, people could get out of the draft by merely going into the "unorganized draft", which was supposed to come forth if the US was invaded by Vietnam. Formally, if you read that many decades later, you might naively think it actually implied some military service, whereas knowing the historical background gives it a very different aspect.

This whole "unorganized militia" banner is a bit like people calling themselves "draft dodgers", and then claiming veteran's preference because they've been part of a "dodged draft". The word simply means the opposite of what they think it means.

But the short form: "The Sedentary, reserve, inactive, unorganised, general (or other term indicating INACTIVITY) Militia, has always been unorganized and untrained"

The term "unorganized" did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia.

Militia service was so unpopular that Delaware abolished its militia system altogether in 1831. Massachusetts eliminated compulsory service in 1840, followed by Maine, Ohio, Vermont in 1844, Connecticut and New York in 1846, Missouri in 1847, and New Hampshire in 1851. Indiana classified its militia according to age in 1840, and exempted all but the young men from service. New Jersey withdrew the right to imprison a man for failure to pay a militia fine in 1844; Iowa did the same in 1846, Michigan in 1850, and California in 1856." - Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard, p. 83

Using your definition, Jack, Blogs would be a member of the militia.

As would a gang member.

Jack, you prove what Pope meant when he said:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,And drinking largely sobers us again.

Laci you're silly with your talk of how being in a militia would or wouldn't grant you rights. You don't understand that rights are not granted, privilages are. And as a right all you need to do to earn it is have a pulse. The unorganized militia is anyone willing. That's why we don't only allow military and LEOs to have guns, because everyone willing should be ready to fight enemies, foriegn and domestic.

Seriously, TF, how stupid are you? Don't pretend to be intelligent when you can make idiotic comments about the "unorganised militia", or be an idiot an pull a section of the USC which you don't understand or know how to interpret.

Do you belong to an unorganised club?

REPEAT: "The Sedentary, reserve, inactive, unorganised, general (or other term indicating INACTIVITY) Militia"

It is precisely that.

Being a part of it grants you no rights or privileges.

The best analogy is that it is the same as saying you have a registered for the draft.

And untrained assholes like you, Crunchy, Cunnusmaximus, etcetera are more of a liability in wartime than an asset.

Are you so ignorant TF of what went on in Libya and Syria? Do you really think it was totally untrained people who were fighting those battles?

Anyway, some idiot with a gun doesn't stand a chance against a modern military.